from the this-is-infuriating dept

We talk a lot about police overreacting to things, but this takes things to a new and ridiculous level. The Dallas Morning News released a story last night about police in Irving, Texas, arresting 14-year old Ahmed Mohamed, a freshman in high school, for building a digital clock and bringing it in to school to show his teachers. Ahmed likes to tinker and build electronics. This is the kind of thing you'd think the school and the community would want to encourage. But, instead, he was arrested and sent to a juvenile detention center, suspended from school and the police say they may charge him for making a "hoax bomb." Except it's a clock. He never said it was a bomb. He never implied it was a bomb. Just some teachers and the police freaked out about it.

He kept the clock inside his school bag in English class, but the teacher complained when the alarm beeped in the middle of a lesson. Ahmed brought his invention up to show her afterward.

“She was like, it looks like a bomb,” he said.

“I told her, ‘It doesn’t look like a bomb to me.’”

The teacher kept the clock. When the principal and a police officer pulled Ahmed out of sixth period, he suspected he wouldn’t get it back.

They led Ahmed into a room where four other police officers waited. He said an officer he’d never seen before leaned back in his chair and remarked: “Yup. That’s who I thought it was.”

Ahmed felt suddenly conscious of his brown skin and his name — one of the most common in the Muslim religion. But the police kept him busy with questions.

The bell rang at least twice, he said, while the officers searched his belongings and questioned his intentions. The principal threatened to expel him if he didn’t make a written statement, he said.

“They were like, ‘So you tried to make a bomb?’” Ahmed said.

“I told them no, I was trying to make a clock.”

“He said, ‘It looks like a movie bomb to me.’”

The incredible thing is that the police flat out admit that he never claimed it was a bomb, but they're still considering charging him with making a hoax bomb.

Ahmed never claimed his device was anything but a clock, said police spokesman James McLellan. And police have no reason to think it was dangerous. But officers still didn’t believe Ahmed was giving them the whole story.

“We have no information that he claimed it was a bomb,” McLellan said. “He kept maintaining it was a clock, but there was no broader explanation.”

Perhaps there was no broader explanation because none is needed.

Even more ridiculous: they handcuffed this kid (wearing a NASA t-shirt, by the way) and walked him through the school as they took him away. This picture is shameful.

The school has now doubled down on this move, by sending a letter to parents at the school congratulating themselves for this whole thing:

While we do not have any threats to our school community, we want you to be aware that the Irving Police Department responded to a suspicious-looking item on campus yesterday. We are pleased to report that after the police department's assessment, the item discovered at school did not pose a threat to your child's safety.

Our school is cooperating fully with the ongoing police investigation, and we are handling the situation in accordance with the Irving ISD Student Code of Conduct and applicable laws. Please rest assured that we will always take necessary steps to keep our school as safe as possible.

Even worse... the school is using this as a "teaching moment" telling parents to tell their kids to report any "suspicious" things. Like brown kids being curious and inventing cool shit:

I recommend using this opportunity to talk with your child about the Student Code of Conduct and specifically not bringing items to school that are prohibited. Also, this is a good time to remind your child how important it is to immediately report any suspicious items and/or suspicious behavior they observe to any school employee so we can address it right away. We will always take necessary precautions to protect our students.

And by "address" it, apparently, they mean arrest bright kids for being curious and gifted.

The whole "bomb hoax" thing based on authorities getting confused about a non-bomb reminds me of that time, back in 2007, when Cartoon Network tried to promote Adult Swim with light up boxes of various characters placed around Boston -- and because some people freaked out and the city was shut down, Boston's mayor declared the marketing stunt a "bomb hoax." Once again, if someone is building something that you mistake for a bomb, and they had no intention of passing it off as a bomb, nor does it actually look like a bomb, it's not a bomb hoax. At all. And you look ridiculous calling it out as such.

And, of course, you look that much more ridiculous when you not only overreact like this, but do it against a clearly intelligent and talented teenager who likes to tinker with electronics.

Update: A picture of the clock has now been released. Nothing about it changes the story at all.

from the how-sweet dept

Last month, there was a great Wired article by Kyle Wiens, highlighting how, as part of the DMCA 1201 triennial exemption process, John Deere claimed that you didn't really own your own tractor, because you were just "licensing" the software piece of it. And, more importantly, it didn't want the Librarian of Congress to exempt its software, because that would be messing with John Deere's "property rights." We wrote about this, and it seems like another prime example of a company misusing the idea of intellectual property by pretending it meant ownership of the underlying content, rather than just the copyright itself.

That story got a tremendous amount of attention -- so much that the geniuses in John Deere's PR department decided they needed to do something. And by "do something" I mean "make the situation worse." Because, as first noted by Mike Godwin, John Deere sent out a letter to its dealers "responding" to the Wired article in a way that shows that the company doesn't quite understand what's going on. You can read the entire letter below, but here are some of the highlights:

Similar to a car or computer, ownership of equipment does not include the right to copy, modify or distribute software that is embedded in that equipment. A purchaser may own a book, but he/she does not have a right to copy the book, to modify the book or to distribute unauthorized copies to others.

Except... no. When you own a book, you do have the right to modify it. It's your book. And you can redistribute the modified book as well. Yes, it's true that you can't make infringing copies of the book and then redistribute them, but that's totally unrelated to the issue at hand with DMCA 1201. The issue here is solely about modifying. It's about letting users actually modify the product they bought (which, again, is perfectly legitimate with a book). But, thanks to Section 1201 of the DMCA, it's not legal when it comes to your John Deere tractor. Because under 1201, if you circumvent the "technical protection measures" that John Deere put over its software, you've broken the law -- whether or not you made any infringing copies.

That's the concern that people have here. The right to tinker with the products that they bought. You can do that with a book. But John Deere abuses the law to say you can't do that with a tractor.

Later in the letter, John Deere plays the "safety" card, but again is really, really confused and pedantic:

Embedded software is designed and tested to ensure equipment works in certain, expected ways. Software modifications increase the risk that equipment will not function as designed. As a result, allowing unqualified individuals to hack or modify equipment software can endanger Deere customers, dealers, and others.

Yes, John Deere is right that it's tested the software to work as is, but if people want to tinker with it, that's their right as owners of the damn machines. It's easy enough to note that tinkering with the tractor you bought voids any warranties and takes John Deere out of the liability zone if something goes wrong. But an outright ban on modifying means that no matter what John Deere says, you don't own that tractor. Because ownership means that it's yours and you can absolutely tinker with it however you want -- recognizing that there might be consequences.

And, even more importantly, even if everything that John Deere said here was absolutely true and accurate, none of that is a copyright issue, and it's flat out ridiculous that John Deere believes it's appropriate to abuse copyright law for this purpose. Nothing in the copyright statute is about making sure your tractor functions the way John Deere wants it to. So, no, sorry, John Deere, your response is not particularly convincing.

from the screw-you dept

One of the interesting questions we've been looking at for years is whether or not a business is an enabler or a gatekeeper. Being in the gatekeeper business can work for a period of time, but it's often difficult to sustain. Apple is an interesting company in that it certainly has elements of both, enabling in some areas, but being a very strict gatekeeper in other areas. As if to reinforce this point, Apple is apparently changing the screws on iPhones to make them much harder to open. Apparently, it's come up with a "pentalobe" design:

Not only that, but if you bring in your iPhone for repairs, Apple will replace the old screws with these new pentalobe screws to keep you from... well... screwing around. The whole thing seems really incredibly pointless. First of all, those who really want to open the phones will figure out ways to do so. I would guess that it won't take long for tools that work on such screws to hit the market. All this really does is frustrate iPhone owners by making life difficult for them. What possible good does it serve to have a non-standard screw system?

from the freedom-to-tinker? dept

What a world we live in: if you tinker too much with the electronic equipment you buy, you might get charged with a crime. That seems to be what happened to a guy in Oregon who helps mod cable modems. Now, clearly, some people can and do use modded cable modems to access cable service that they haven't paid for, but there are plenty of legitimate reasons to hack your own hardware or to buy modded hardware. Just like unlocking a mobile phone should be perfectly legal, the same is true of unlocking a legally purchased cable modem. As the article linked above explains, most of the indictment seems to focus on the actions of others in this guy's forums, which should lead to an easy Section 230 dismissal (as he shouldn't be responsible for their actions). The only "questionable" issue for the guy is a request for certain information that could potentially have been used to gain unauthorized access -- but that's not evidence that he actually did so. All in all, this seems like an attempt to crack down on anyone interfering with artificial locks put on legally purchased hardware by the cable companies. And, if that's the case, why is the FBI involved at all? Shouldn't this just be a civil issue involving the cable companies?

from the how-dare-you-help-people! dept

It appears that Creative Labs is the latest company to shoot itself in the foot over "intellectual property" issues. Apparently, many users have been upset that Creative has failed to support certain systems, and a user in the Creative Labs' forums started releasing drivers to make things actually work or work better. Creative struck back and has removed the various threads in their forums discussing these drivers (thanks to Joe for sending in the link). Basically, this user, Daniel_K was making Creative products work better, and Creative has forced him to stop, claiming that it's violating their intellectual property rights. From a legal standpoint, Creative is probably absolutely right. But from a business perspective, the move seems suicidal. Just read a few of the comments in the long thread following the announcement from Creative. Many people were buying Creative products because of Daniel's mods, and will now look elsewhere. This seems like yet another case of IP laws being used to hold back innovation, rather than encourage it.